昌吉佳美医院在哪儿(昌吉阴茎勃起后迅速疲软) (今日更新中)

The CIA has determined that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman personally ordered the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, despite the Saudi government's denials that the de facto ruler was involved, according to a Washington Post report.Citing people familiar with the matter, the Post reported Friday that the CIA reached its conclusion by examining several sources of intelligence. According to the Post, US officials have high confidence in the CIA's assessment.A spokesman for the CIA declined to comment to the Post. The Saudi government has denied bin Salman's involvement in Khashoggi's death.Fatimah Baeshen, a spokeswoman for the Saudi Embassy in Washington, told the newspaper that the claims in the CIA's "purported assessment are false.""We have and continue to hear various theories without seeing the primary basis for these speculations," she told the Post.Khashoggi, a former Saudi royal insider who became a critic of the country's government, went missing in October after he visited the Saudi consulate in Istanbul to obtain papers for his upcoming marriage. The Saudi government offered changing explanations for Khashoggi's disappearance.Included in the US intelligence analyzed by the CIA was a phone call the prince's brother Khalid bin Salman made to Khashoggi, encouraging the journalist to make the trip to the consulate to get the documents, according to the Post. Sources told the Post that Khalid made the call at his brother's command.Khalid denied the Post's reporting, saying on Twitter that he had never spoken to Khashoggi by phone."I never talked to him by phone and certainly never suggested he go to Turkey for any reason. I ask the US government to release any information regarding this claim," Khalid said.He said the last contact he'd had with Khashoggi was via text in October 2017.Baeshen told the Post that Khalid, who is the Saudi ambassador to the US, and Khashoggi never discussed "anything related to going to Turkey."The CIA also examined an audio recording from inside the Saudi consulate provided by Turkey and a phone call placed from inside the consulate after Khashoggi was killed, according to the Post.Maher Mutreb, an alleged member of the Saudi hit team and a security official for the crown prince, placed the phone call to a top aide for bin Salman informing the aide that the job had been done, people familiar with the call told the newspaper.According to the Post, the CIA also based its conclusion on its evaluation of bin Salman as a leader who is involved in minor matters.The CIA does not know the location of Khashoggi's remains, according to the Post.The Trump administration on Thursday?imposed penalties on 17 individuals over their alleged roles in the killing of Khashoggi. Khashoggi's assassination has created a crisis for the Trump administration and drawn attention to President Donald Trump's business ties to Saudi Arabia and the relationship between bin Salman and Trump's son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner.Earlier Thursday, the Saudi Public Prosecutor's Office said 11 people had been charged for their involvement in the death of Khashoggi, adding that five are facing capital punishment for being directly involved in "ordering and executing the crime."Khashoggi was killed following "a fight and a quarrel" at the Saudi consulate, the prosecutor's office claimed. Prosecutors said Khashoggi was tied up and injected with an overdose of a sedative that killed him. Then, according to prosecutors, his body was dismembered and removed from the consulate by five people. 3617

The COVID-19 death of the speaker of the New Hampshire House of Representatives has raised fears that other members of one of the world's largest legislatures might have been exposed at their swearing-in ceremony last week. A medical examiner announced the cause of death Thursday of 71-year-old Dick Hinch. Hinch was found dead in his home.He was photographed at the outdoor swearing-in wearing a mask improperly, without it covering both his nose and mouth. Dozens reportedly attended without wearing masks at all. Several Republican lawmakers have tested positive after attending an indoor meeting in late November where many attendees didn't wear masks. One Republican representative says Hinch's death may be a result of “peer pressure exerted by those in the Republican Party who refuse to take reasonable precautions."At a news conference Thursday, New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu, a fellow Republican, called Hinch a "tireless leader" and close friend. He then said Hinch's death was a "cautionary tale" about not wearing a mask properly.“For those who are just out there doing the opposite just to make some ridiculous political point, it is horribly wrong,” Sununu said. “Please use your heads. Don’t act like a bunch of children, frankly.”Other state Republicans were harsher in their messaging. Representative William Marsh, a retired doctor, posted on Twitter, “Those in our caucus who refused to take precautions are responsible for Dick Hinch’s death." 1479

The decades-old sexual assault and murder of a young girl has been solved, thanks to DNA and genealogy records.In September 1982, 8-year-old Kelly Prosser was walking home from school in Columbus, Ohio. Prosser never made it home, and her body was found in a cornfield two days later after her raincoat was spotted.The case went unsolved for decades.DNA evidence from the items collected at the time was entered into CODIS in 2014. There were no hits.Friday, Prosser’s killer was identified as Harold Warren Jarrell, with the help of DNA evidence and genealogical research. Jarrell is now deceased, living relatives helped officers confirm details about Jarrell’s involvement.In 1977, Jarrell was charged with abducting a girl on the north side of Columbus, he was released in early 1982. Jarrell was never mentioned in Prosser’s case file. 848

The Cameron Peak Fire is now the largest wildfire in Colorado's history. It grew overnight and is now 164,140 acres, but it remains 56% contained and no injuries have been reported.The fire became the largest in Colorado history Wednesday evening. It took only 48 days for the Cameron Peak Fire to surpass the 139,007-acre Pine Gulch Fire as the largest in recorded state history, and also blew past the 137,760-acre Hayman Fire in 2002.In a Thursday morning update, Operations Section Chief Paul Demerico of Rocky Mountain Team 1 said they are expecting a challenging few days ahead."But we have beefed up and feel like we have adequate resources to do what we can, especially when it comes to structure protection," he said.Several areas near the fire are under mandatory or voluntary evacuations as a result of the blaze. Highway 34 was also temporarily shut down in both directions between Loveland and Estes Park to help with evacuations, but has reopened.In addition, the Canyon Lakes Ranger District of the Roosevelt National Forest closed Thursday morning. This closure includes recreation sites — including all campgrounds — trails and Forest Service Roads.View the mandatory evacuations in the map below, or go here for the full list of evacuations and closures.Demerico said the western side of fire is almost all contained, but the fire was able to run east all the way to County Road 27 thanks to the wind, terrain and dry fuels.The main objective for the next day or so is to keep the fire south of 44H Buckhorn Road and west of County Road 27, he said.Winds will continue to be a problem over the next few days, Demerico said. Structure protection resources are scattered around Storm Mountain, Cedar Park, Glen Haven and Estes Park.The gusts also prevent fire officials from flying aircraft to help fight the blaze from the air.Larimer County residents may see periods of moderate to heavy smoke in their neighborhoods Thursday, according to the Colorado Air Quality Summary. The smoke may impact Fort Collins and Loveland as well.The National Weather Service said smoke from both the Cameron Peak Fire and the new East Troublesome Fire in Grand County will move toward Denver Thursday afternoon.The state's 10 largest wildfires in history, ranked by acreage, are:1. Cameron Peak Fire (2020): 164,140 acres2. Pine Gulch Fire (2020): 139,007 acres3. Hayman Fire (2002): 137,760 acres4. Spring Fire (2018): 108,045 acres5. High Park Fire (2012): 87,284 acres6. Missionary Ridge Fire (2002): 72,962 acres7. 416 Fire (2018): 54,000 acres8. Bridger Fire (2008): 45,800 acres9. Last Chance Fire (2012): 45,000 acres10. Bear Springs/Callie Marie fires (2011): 44,662 acresNote: The Rocky Mountain Area Coordination Center said the West Fork Complex fire, which burned a total of 109,632 acres in 2013, is not included on this list since it involved three separate fires.This story was originally published by Stephanie Butzer at KMGH. 2951

The first hearing in CNN and Jim Acosta's federal lawsuit against President Trump and several top White House aides lasted for two hours of tough questioning of both sides.At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Timothy J. Kelly said he would announce his decision Thursday afternoon.CNN and Acosta are alleging that the White House's suspension of his press pass violates the First and Fifth Amendments.The hearing started around 3:40 p.m., Kelly began by probing CNN's arguments for the better part of an hour. Then he turned to questioning a lawyer representing the government.Lawyers for the network and Acosta asked for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction that would restore his press pass right away, arguing that time is of the essence because his rights are violated every day his pass is suspended.Kelly opened the hearing by quizzing CNN attorney Theodore Boutrous on the network's First Amendment claim and asking how the President's history of attacks on CNN should be viewed in the context of the lawsuit.Boutrous rattled off examples of Trump's missives against CNN, including his claim that the network is an "enemy of the people."Kelly expressed skepticism that this proves the Acosta ban is "content-based discrimination," as CNN is alleging.Kelly said there is some evidence that Acosta's conduct -- not his content -- led the White House to suspend his press pass.But Boutrous disputed that and said there "never will there be more evidence of facial discrimination and animus against an individual reporter" than in this case.Kelly said "we've all seen the clip" of the White House press conference where Trump and Acosta had a combative exchange last week. Kelly said that Acosta "continued speaking after his time expired" and "wouldn't give up his microphone" -- points that the Trump administration made in its briefs earlier Wednesday.Under questioning from the judge, Boutrous cited Trump's words to Acosta from the press conference, and said, "'Rudeness' is really a code word for 'I don't like you being an aggressive reporter.'"Kelly peppered CNN's attorney with hypotheticals as he tried to determine what a lawful move by the White House, responding to Acosta's actions, would look like."Could they let him keep the pass but tell him he couldn't come to presidential press conferences?" Kelly asked.Boutrous contended that even a partial response like that would be a violation of Acosta's First Amendment rights.Boutrous called the White House's move to revoke Acosta's hard pass "the definition of arbitrariness and capriciousness.""What are the standards?" Boutrous asked. "Rudeness is not a standard. If it were no one could have gone to the press conference."Boutrous separately brought up evidence that hadn't been available when CNN filed its suit: A fundraising email that the Trump campaign sent Wednesday.The email touted the decision to revoke Acosta's credentials and attacked CNN for what it called its "liberal bias." Boutrous said that by grouping that all together in the same breath, the email made it clear that it was Acosta's coverage and not his conduct at a press conference that triggered the revocation of his press pass.Kelly asked CNN's lawyers to state the company's position regarding the original White House accusation that Acosta placed his hands a White House intern as she tried to grab his microphone away."It's absolutely false," Boutrous said.Boutrous also pointed out that Trump administration never mentioned that accusation against Acosta in the 28-page brief that Justice Department lawyers filed with the court earlier on Wednesday."They've abandoned that" claim, Boutrous said.In his first question in a back and forth with the government, Kelly asked Justice Department attorney James Burnham to clear up the government's shifting rationale for revoking Acosta's pass."Why don't you set me straight," Kelly said. "Let me know what was the reason and address this issue of whether the government's reason has changed over time.""There doesn't need to be a reason because there's no First Amendment protection and the President has broad discretion," Burnham said.Still, Burnham called the White House's stated reasonings "pretty consistent throughout," and walked through a series of statements that the administration has made — from Trump's first comments at the press conference to Sanders' tweets announcing the revocation to the official statement put out Tuesday after CNN filed its suit.Burnham said Sanders' claim that Acosta had inappropriately touched a White House intern was not a part of their legal argument."We're not relying on that here and I don't think the White House is relying on that here," Burnham said.Burnham said that it would be perfectly legal for the White House to revoke a journalist's credentials if it didn't agree with their reporting.He made the assertion under questioning from Kelly, who asked him to state the administration's position in this hypothetical situation.The judge asked if the White House could essentially tell any individual journalist, "we don't like your reporting, so we're pulling your hard pass." Burnham replied, "as a matter of law... yes."Pressed again by the judge on Sanders' claim that Acosta had inappropriately touched the intern, Burnham said "we don't have a position" on that."The one consistent explanation," Burnham said, "is disorder at the press conference."Burnham contended that revoking Acosta's hard pass was not "viewpoint discrimination" — part of a legal threshold for a First Amendment claim."A single journalist's attempt to monopolize a press conference is not a viewpoint and revoking a hard pass in response to that is not viewpoint discrimination," Burnham said.Kelly tried to press for details about how Acosta's pass came to be revoked, asking Burnham who made the actual decision.Burnham said he didn't have any information beyond what had been filed in court documents: that the revocation was first announced by Sanders on November 7 and then "ratified" by Trump the next day."Do you have any information to suggest that it was anyone other than Ms. Sanders that made the decision?" Kelly asked."No, not that I'm offering today. I'm not denying it but I don't know anything beyond what's been filed," Burnham said.Later, Burnham argued that revoking Acosta's press pass does not infringe on his First Amendment rights because he can still call White House staffers for interviews or "catch them on their way out" of the building."I think the harm to the network is very small," Burnham said."Their cameras are still in there," he added.Burnham said CNN had made an "odd First Amendment injury" claim and suggested that Acosta could do his job "just as effectively" watching the President's appearances piped into a studio on CNN."The President never has to speak to Mr. Acosta again," Burnham said. "The President never has to give an interview to Mr. Acosta. And the President never has to call on Mr. Acosta at a press conference.""To be in a room where he has no right to speak... this seems to me like an odd First Amendment injury that we're talking about," Burnham said.Boutrous, the CNN attorney, fired back on rebuttal."That's not how reporters break stories. It's simply a fundamental misconception of journalism," Boutrous said, adding how unscheduled gaggles and source meetings throughout the White House amounted to "invaluable access."In a legal filing by the Justice Department on Wednesday, the White House asserted that it has "broad discretion" to pick and choose which journalists are given a permanent pass to cover it.That position is a sharp break with decades of tradition. Historically both Republican and Democratic administrations have had a permissive approach to press access, providing credentials both to big news organizations like CNN and obscure and fringe outlets.Acosta's suspension -— which took effect one week ago — is an unprecedented step. Journalism advocates say it could have a chilling effect on news coverage.CNN and Acosta's lawsuit was filed on Tuesday morning, nearly one week after Acosta was banned.Before the hearing began, CNN's lawyers said the case hinges on Acosta and CNN's First Amendment rights; the shifting rationales behind the ban; and the administration's failure to follow the federal regulations that pertain to press passes, an alleged violation of Fifth Amendment rights. The lawsuit asserts that this ban is really about Trump's dislike of Acosta.The "reasonable inference from defendants' conduct is that they have revoked Acosta's credentials as a form of content- and viewpoint-based discrimination and in retaliation for plaintiffs' exercise of protected First Amendment activity," CNN's lawsuit alleges.In addition to the temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction that CNN is seeking at the hearing, CNN and Acosta are also seeking what's known as "permanent relief." The lawsuit asks the judge to determine that Trump's action was "unconstitutional, in violation of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment." This could protect other reporters against similar actions in the future."If the press is not free to cover the news because its reporter is unjustly denied access, it is not free," former White House correspondent Sam Donaldson said in a declaration supporting CNN that was filed with the court on Tuesday. "And if denying access to a reporter an organization has chosen to represent it -- in effect asserting the president's right to take that choice away from a news organization and make it himself -- is permitted, then the press is not free."Ted Olson, a Republican heavyweight who successfully argued for George W. Bush in Bush v. Gore, is representing CNN, along with Boutrous — himself another prominent attorney — and the network's chief counsel, David Vigilante.Olson said Tuesday that while it was Acosta whose press pass was suspended this time, "this could happen to any journalist by any politician."He spoke forcefully against Trump's action. "The White House cannot get away with this," Olson said.Most of the country's major news organizations have sided with CNN through statements and plan to file friend-of-the-court briefs. 10291

来源：资阳报